MOTUnation.com

James Steele wrote:I CANNOT PROVE ANY OF THIS NOR DO I HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT IT, but my gut tells me that I doubt Digi is all that cooperative in helping MOTU get DP to run completely slick on TDM.

My gut tells me that your gut is digesting the situation correctly!

James Steele wrote:

bongo_x wrote:Hell, I might even pick up LE for giggles. I was a big fan of Studio Vision, especially for MIDI.

Its always good to know another/own another daw, if just for a new way of thinking, IMO.

I have a love/hate things for digi and MOTU and they are sort of inversed. I love pro tools, the software for me works great. but I hate some of the digi monopoly crap they pull as well as the nonsensical limitations. On the other hand I like the way MOTU gives you everything you need for the most part, but sometimes DP can make me want to rip my skull out. (similar to logic).

No DAW is perfect for me unfortuantely, and to make it worse I love and hate many of the things that are different from program to program.

Compatibility is a whole other story, I yearn for complete compatiblity, ala photoshop in the ...photo manipulation world, but I'd be nervous of the control and lack of inovation that that could spur in the music world...

James Steele wrote: ...On the other hand, I don't think there is much room any more for more large "pro studios" as definied by by pcm and others. In fact, I think that very paradigm is shifting and it's going to be harder and harder for those places to make their monthly nut with the way things are going...

definitely, I feel lucky to to have got in at the end of it. but you never know what the future holds.

bb

n8tron wrote:Compatibility is a whole other story, I yearn for complete compatiblity, ala photoshop in the ...photo manipulation world, but I'd be nervous of the control and lack of inovation that that could spur in the music world...

Hmmm... I have to think about that one. Isn't it possible that if there were a more seamless way to move projects from one DAW to the next throughout various parts of the workflow (like an OMF format that was truly reliable?) it might actually spur MORE innovation and competition?

Not only that, it might perhaps INCREASE sales of DAWs as users of one DAW might feel more safe to work in multiple DAWs. As it stands now, I'm pretty scared to move something out of DP and back again, etc.... not to mention the hassle of printing effects or having to re-create them.

Remember, weren't there a lot of manufacturers worried that MIDI was going to be a bad thing and it ended up accounting for a HUGE boom in sales of music gear? A shame that I don't think manufacturers were ever able to get together again and make a MIDI 2.0 spec, right? I mean what is the bandwidth of a serial MIDI connection... it's a joke, right? I used to know... but it's something like 32kbps or slower than a 56k phone modem. Would have been nice if they pulled it together and at least upped the serial speed prior to the popularity of VIs.

bongo_x wrote: I think this is a strange thing to get all riled up about. I don't see how this diminishes DP or the work that anyone does in it. there are people making great records in live, but no one is going to run live as their main daw in a pro studio. what's one got to do with the other?

it's a matter of perception, like all things in this business. you may not care, bongo, but others might. pthd is NOT the daw used in 100% of pro studios, so im sorry, but it bugs me when people go around saying that it is. i feel it is bad for people to think PT is the only game in town, as a DP user, because it inevitably, hurts DP sales...not by owners of pro studios mind you, but by the at times brainless mass of garagebanders that are force fed the idea that PT is the only game in town, and then they go out and buy PTLE, and automatically dismiss all other native DAWs. No, i don't work for MOTU, but as a DP user, i don't want to see the DAW ive grown to love working with lose market share. It isn't good for me. bottom line.

oh and for what it's worth, i don't consider myself a "pro" im a garagebander, i work in DP, and im damn proud of it.

James Steele wrote:

n8tron wrote:Compatibility is a whole other story, I yearn for complete compatiblity, ala photoshop in the ...photo manipulation world, but I'd be nervous of the control and lack of inovation that that could spur in the music world...

Hmmm... I have to think about that one. Isn't it possible that if there were a more seamless way to move projects from one DAW to the next throughout various parts of the workflow (like an OMF format that was truly reliable?) it might actually spur MORE innovation and competition?

Not only that, it might perhaps INCREASE sales of DAWs as users of one DAW might feel more safe to work in multiple DAWs. As it stands now, I'm pretty scared to move something out of DP and back again, etc.... not to mention the hassle of printing effects or having to re-create them.

Remember, weren't there a lot of manufacturers worried that MIDI was going to be a bad thing and it ended up accounting for a HUGE boom in sales of music gear? A shame that I don't think manufacturers were ever able to get together again and make a MIDI 2.0 spec, right? I mean what is the bandwidth of a serial MIDI connection... it's a joke, right? I used to know... but it's something like 32kbps or slower than a 56k phone modem. Would have been nice if they pulled it together and at least upped the serial speed prior to the popularity of VIs.

I was talking about compatability that would exist in a world with just 1 daw. A standard format workable in all daws would be even better, but unfortuantely about as possible as all the worlds countries getting along...even though such a thing would benefit all parties.

I wonder what would have changed with a midi2.0 spec. while it is a "slow" connection, it certainly works well. I wonder the possiblities that would occur with a better spec...

I have to admit PT LE has made me some money too - I arrange songs in DP (normally with more than 32 tracks), then merge soundbites, and send them to the producer to mix on his PT LE system - well, he always had to submix to get below 32 tracks, and it didn't sound as good as my rough mixes, so now I get to mix his songs too (on DP )

I can see the utilitarian benefit of having PTLE. After mulling things over since this thread began, it may actually make sense for me. I won't be doing anything major in PT. Where I can't get zero-sync'd AIFFs from someone using PT, I could at least use LE as a bridge just to cover certain bases with getting audio files from point A to point B and back again without having to toil with OMF. I don't see a pressing need to have TDM/RTAS equivalents of plugins-- just raw audio-- and 32 tracks should be enough for porting stems.

I've done without PT/PTLE for ages-- and I know a few "pro studios" that thrive successfully with only DP in house. That's a long controversial story that need not be explored here, but it is a very good example of how an exception to the rules can prove to be quite profound in the shadow of arguments from the not-so-silent majority.

Should I ever need a full wack PT HD system I'll just get one. Simple as that. I've only yet seen the need.

Personally I think a so-called Pro Studio that is running DP could do well as I know many times I call up and ask if they're compatible (for example if I'm thinking of tracking drums there, or maybe bringing a project in to mix) and it would make my life easier if they at least had the option available.

James Steele wrote:Personally I think a so-called Pro Studio that is running DP could do well as I know many times I call up and ask if they're compatible (for example if I'm thinking of tracking drums there, or maybe bringing a project in to mix) and it would make my life easier if they at least had the option available.

This is true-- but it appears that there are enough ways around it as well. Just as in my case, I know the guys I work with in non-PT studios always say that if they should ever need it they'll get it. The nice thing for them is that they all know PT very well, so it wouldn't be such a hassle to incorporate it.

But it remains a sticky $15k contingency where having it in house doesn't guarantee that it will pay for itself as a "just-in-case" DAW. It's easier to suppliment with other DAWs--- but there's no question that the whole thing will ever be controversial.

Everyone should have LE, with or without the Production Toolkit, just so you can easily receive and send sessions with audio in place. It's just a fact of the business these days if you interact with other studios/producers.

An artist manager called me , he asked;
-"I listened to the record you did with "X" Artist , can you record the show we're doin' next month ?"
-" yeah sure "
-"you record on Pro tools?"
- "no , I use something a lot better than that , it's called Digital Performer"
-"Oh I see , Ok then , can you mix It and all ?"
-"Of course ..... etc.....

People who wishes to work with me won't mind that I use DP over PT, in fact they hire me , not the software I use.
People who really wishes to record on PTHD will go to the "Full Blown Big Time Studio" with whoever sitting at the desk.

I don't like the monopoly situation of Avid , and I really wish I would never have to buy PT.
So far so good.....

Okay. Here's the deal of the century:

Limited time offer from Sweetwater!

PT HD|1: $88,888.00 before rebate!!

http://www.sweetwater.com/c554--Pro_Too ... re_Systems

Count me in, baby. That's got to be one heckuva rebate!!

Personally I think monopoly holds everyone back. Perhaps PTLE, or something like it would steal some DP users if they let you run it without the hardware. But then, maybe some PT users would prefer MOTU interfaces over the Digi offerings and MOTU would pick up some market share there. As far as the hardware requirement being Digidesign's "dongle", maybe they would sell a lot more copies of PT altogether if it wasn't tied to the hardware. Who can say?